PROPOSED GCOS DONOR FUND

1
PROPOSED GCOS DONOR FUND

• A Progress Report to
• SBSTA Intersessional Meeting
• 2 June 2003
• S L Barrell
• Australia

2
Proposed GCOS Donor Fund

• Origin
• Rationale
• Objective
• Process
• Challenges and risks
• Features
• Implementation issues
• Next steps

3
Origin of proposal

• Decision 14/CP.4
• Addressing priorities for improved global
  monitoring
• Options for financial support
• Subsequent SBSTA Conclusions
• Critical gaps in funding options
• Addressing diversity of needs
• Lack of coordinated mechanism
• Global vs national/regional priorities
• US announcement on funding
• Call for matching contributions
• Impending Second Adequacy Report
• Pathway for implementation

4
GCOS Fund why bring to SBSTA?

• Relevance to UNFCCC
• Meet commitments under Art 4.2gh, Art 5
• Implementation of COP Decisions
• Implementation of 2AR recommendations
• Visibility
• To broader climate change community
• All countries, all portfolios
• Governance of fund
• Member countries of GCOS sponsors
• As member countries, not as Parties to UNFCCC
• Information not negotiation
• Why GCOS?

5
Global Climate Observing System
Other component systems
Global Ocean Observing System(GOOS) Ocean
WMO Global Atmospheric Watch (GAW) Atmospheric Che
mistry
Global Terrestrial Observing System (GTOS) Land
WMO World Hydrological Cycle Observing System (WH
YCOS) Land/Water
WMO WWW Global Observing System (GOS) Atmosphere
6
Objective of Proposed GCOS Fund

• To provide
• A stable, long-term, flexible funding source
• Addressing highest priority needs for key
  (baseline) elements
• Of an agreed global observing system for climate
• In developing countries
• In support of UNFCCC and others
• On the basis of voluntary contributions
• Complementing existing funding, coordination
  implementation mechanisms

7
Process so far

• Concept developed
• Donor Fund and Board
• Australian intervention at SBSTA17
• Informal discussion paper circulated
• SBSTA17 conclusions
• Requested GCOS SC to explore
• Informal meeting, Geneva February 2003
• GCOS SC meeting, Melbourne April 2003
• Progress report to SBSTA18

8
Challenges and risks

• Possible overlaps with other mechanisms
• Competition for donor resources
• Competition for monitoring priorities
• Sustainability of new/resumed stations
• Factors other than funding
• Potential manipulation of priorities
• Donor preferences for one-off vs ongoing
  contributions
• Complex financial/management structure required
• Cost/overheads of administration of fund

9
Proposed features

• Donor Board
• Management, oversight, priority setting
• Advised by GCOS SC and Science Panels
• Establish guidelines for funds allocation
• Monitor and review implementation activities
• Donors
• countries, agencies, institutions, etc
• Contributions
• Option 1 Untargeted (cash) contributions,
  allocated by Board
• Option 2 Targeted (cash or in kind)
  contributions

10
More proposed features

• Develop sustain critical mass of funding
• More effective use of limited resources
• Avoid duplication, optimise opportunities
• Generate sustained resource stream through
  investment
• Address global priorities
• Within context of national/regional programs
• Complement build on national/regional
  activities
• Complement, not replace bi-lateral arrangements

11
More proposed features

• Address breadth of funding needs
• Capacity building
• Infrastructure, establishment maintenance
• Sustained operating support
• End-to-end integrated approach to funding and
  implementation
• Develop and implement cross-cutting approaches
• Across all climate regimes and disciplines
• Including data management and exchange

12
More proposed features

• Transparent allocation and reporting procedures
• Utilise build on existing funding, coordination
  and implementation mechanisms
• Cooperative arrangements with other mechanisms
• Co-finance especially for capacity building
  activities
• Regional implementation

13
Implementation issues

• Establishment of Donor Board
• Membership
• Participation self-funded
• Location of fund
• GCOS Trust Fund
• Distinct identity for Donor Fund
• Methods of contribution
• Options 1 or 2
• Controls on Option 2
• Management of fund
• Program manager within GCOS Office
• Priorities set by Board

14
More Implementation Issues

• Monitor implementation
• Avoid duplication
• Set goals and performance measures
• Maximum use of existing mechanisms eg WMO/VCP
• Collaboration with regional mechanisms eg SPREP
• Utilise existing monitoring systems eg GCOS
  Monitoring Centres
• Collaborate in establishing new mechanisms
• Recipients of funds
• Early focus on LDCs
• Early focus on key baseline systems eg GUAN
• Aim at self-sufficiency
• Exclude staff and telecommunications costs

15
More Implementation Issues

• Consultation linkages with stakeholders
• Actual and potential donors
• GCOS Steering Committee
• GCOS Office
• GCOS sponsoring agencies
• Potential recipients
• UNFCCC
• Other funding and implementation mechanisms
• Need to keep as simple as possible

16
Next steps

• GCOS SC gave strong endorsement
• Need to consider views of all stakeholders
• But not an issue for SBSTA negotiation
• High level planning meeting of potential donors
• Before COP-9
• Convened by GCOS SC
• Flesh out details of establishment and operation
  of Donor Fund and Donor Board
• NOT a commitments meeting
• Report back to SBSTA-19 / COP-9

17
Summary

• Proposal recognises a gap in existing funding
  mechanisms
• Addressing global priorities
• Meeting wide range of funding needs
• Integrated and cross-sectoral approach
• and an opportunity to create an effective
  critical mass of funding
• Donors to have strong voice in allocation
  implementation
• Strong support from many stakeholders
• Ambitious but achievable